Since people continue to spread the factually dubious statement that Iceland “told creditors & IMF to go jump, nationalised banks, arrested the fraudsters, gave debt relief and is now growing very strongly, thanks” I find I have to write this here thing.

Interesting article, needs to be verified of course. But if we assume it is mostly correct it looks like they took on a libertarian stance which I favor anyways. Still they did 10 x more than the US will ever do about this, e.g. prosecutions, some (short) nationalizations, debt forgiveness/default where foreign creditors are concerned (aka screw you) and more. I like how it is listed as a negative that they put "Important" british people (aka crooks) on hold and then later to call them back. Well done!

Yeah, well done for refusing to take the call of the C of the E, who was ringing to ask what had happened to £4.5bn of his fellow citizens' savings. What a crook indeed! As for that articles repeated reference to loan shark rates, well I don't know too many loan sharks offering a fixed 3% repayment rate over 30 years.

"So the true story is that Iceland tried and tried and tried and tried as hard as we could to save the creditors. The only reason why we didn’t is that the Icelandic government, then and now, is completely incompetent. "

That sounds a lot more plausible than most the the stories of the Iceland.

. But if we assume it is mostly correct it looks like they took on a libertarian stance which I favor anyways.

No, the libertarians would want you to pay the banks all you owe them. I don't see this as libertarian at all. The libertarians deregulated the banking industry which is why Iceland got into trouble in the first place.

Yeah, well done for refusing to take the call of the C of the E, who was ringing to ask what had happened to £4.5bn of his fellow citizens' savings. What a crook indeed! As for that articles repeated reference to loan shark rates, well I don't know too many loan sharks offering a fixed 3% repayment rate over 30 years.

"In May 2009, The Daily Telegraph reported that Darling changed the designation of his second home four times in four years, allowing him to claim for the costs of his family home in Edinburgh, and to buy and furnish a flat in London including the cost of stamp duty and other legal fees. Darling said that "the claims were made within House of Commons rules".[26][27][28]
On 1 June 2009, Darling apologised "unreservedly" about a mistaken claim for £700, and had agreed to repay the money. He was supported by the Prime Minister, who referred to the incident as an inadvertent mistake.[29]"

. But if we assume it is mostly correct it looks like they took on a libertarian stance which I favor anyways.

No, the libertarians would want you to pay the banks all you owe them. I don't see this as libertarian at all. The libertarians deregulated the banking industry which is why Iceland got into trouble in the first place.

This may be a libertine act, but believe me, it is not libertarian.

That is simply not true. The libertarian approach would go through bankruptcy for everybody who cannot pay, be it individual or corporation. The banks would have gotten far far less with that approach. But the regulations point is definitely debatable, some regulations are usually necessary. I prefer them few and concise so that there is no wiggle room and that they are easy to understand for everyone.